[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#558524: Bug#558524: Missing autoreconf to fix 554821 or similar bugs in the future

On dim., 2009-11-29 at 01:57 +0100, Peter Fritzsche wrote:
> I did a rebuild of all packages which are affected by bug #554821. As it seems
> your package doesnt do the needed autoreconf needed for libtool. When doing
> autoreconf or the needed sequence of different autotools/libtool utilities the
> package should be able to fix the problem automatically.
> /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz explains it in section "Basic
> summary of packaging source that uses autotools". 

Excuse me, but that's too much information. Between the recently filled
bug about FTBFS, #554821 and the just filled bugs, I just can't keep up.

It seems that binutils-gold runs into a lot of issues. I know my
upstream, they're usually quite confident with library stuff, so i don't
even want to imagine what it should be with upstream less knowledgeable.

Maybe the transition to binutils-gold is really needed for a lot of
reasons, but for the moment it just waste my time (and my upstream's)
with a lot of unintelligible bug reports. Could you explain what exactly
are the /problems/ (packages work _perfectly_ fine for the moment)? 

Severity minor seems to indicate I can just ignore the bugs for the
moment, and try to report them upstream when I have time (and when I'll
have understood them), but having a lot of them (with unintelligible
explanations) scares me a little.

By the way, I thought MBF were supposed to be announced on debian-devel.
I don't track devian-devel much these days, so I might have missed it,
but I didn't saw it. Adding a link to the message announcing/explaining
the MBF in the report might be a good idea.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xfce-devel/attachments/20091129/2f87d311/attachment.pgp>

Reply to: